We would like to thank all of those who came to the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario’s booth at the Green Living Show last weekend to learn about your rights under the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993 (EBR). Many of those who came to our booth had questions. Here are some of the typical queries and their answers.

1. What do you do? What is this all about?
2. Are you part of the Ministry of the Environment?
3. How many people are in your office?
4. Are these books on your rack free?
5. You say we can comment on proposed government decisions. How do you ensure the ministries consider our comments?
6. There is a litter problem in our neighbourhood park. My mom and I have to pick up garbage there every two weeks. How do I stop this littering problem?
7. I am a high school teacher. What are some great resources for my students?

1. What do you do? What is this all about?
Required by a law called the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993 (EBR), the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario (ECO) is an independent officer appointed by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. His role is comparable to the Auditor General, the Ombudsman, and the Information and Privacy Commissioner, in that he is non-partisan and is an arms-length officer of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. The ECO oversees 13 Ontario ministries’decision making as those decisions relate to the environment.The ECO monitors and reports on the 13 ministries’ compliance with the EBR, the government’s progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and its actions towards achieving greater energy conservation at all three levels of government. The current Commissioner is Gord Miller, who is in his third 5-year term.The EBR allows residents of Ontario to participate in environmental decision making in three main ways:

• The Environmental Registry: The Registry is a website database where the government is required to post for public notice information about proposals, decisions and policy changes that affect the environment. You have the right to comment on these proposals and the ministries must explain the effect your comments had when making their final decision.
• Application for an Investigation: Any two residents of Ontario who believe that a prescribed Act, regulation or instrument has been contravened may apply to the Environmental Commissioner for an investigation of the alleged contravention by the appropriate ministry.
• Application for Review: Any two residents of Ontario who believe that an existing policy, Act, regulation or instrument of Ontario should be amended, repealed or revoked in order to protect the environment may apply to the Environmental Commissioner for a review of the policy, Act, regulation or instrument by the appropriate ministry. Any two residents of Ontario may also request a new policy, Act regulation or instrument in order to protect the environment.

2. Are you part of the Ministry of the Environment?
No, the ECO is not a part of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. In fact, the Ministry of the Environment is one of 13 ministries, prescribed under the EBR, which the ECO oversees.

3. How many people are in your office?
There are 24 staff in our office including the Commissioner.

4. Are these books on your rack free?
Yes. The ECO releases three annual reports each year: the Annual Report, the Annual Greenhouse Gas Progress Report and the Annual Energy Conservation Progress report. The ECO also releases special reports as he sees fit. In 2012, the ECO released two special reports:  Biodiversity: A Nation’s Commitment, an Obligation for Ontario and Ready for Change? An assessment of Ontario’s climate change adaptation strategy.All of the ECO’s publications are available free of charge to the public. There are a limited number of paper reports and USBs (containing PDF versions of our reports) available. EPUB and PDF reports are always available for download on our website.

5. You say we can comment on proposed government decisions. How do you ensure the ministries consider our comments?
A minister who gives notice of a proposal on the Registry must consider the comments in reaching a decision. It is the ECO’s role to ensure ministries prescribed under the EBR comply with these rules by way of monitoring the Registry and reviewing all comments.

6. There is a litter problem in our neighbourhood park. My mom and I have to pick up garbage there every two weeks. How do I stop this littering problem?
Congratulations on helping to preserve the environment through your individual action. Litter and waste management are a municipal issue so you want to contact your local councillor and/or your local Public Works department to see what can be done.

7. I am a high school teacher. What are some great resources for my students?
You might start by looking through our Annual reports, Energy Conservation reports or Greenhouse Gas reports which are available on our website. There are many articles that relate to your curriculum. Sample articles from the 2010/11 Annual Report are:
Snapping Turtles: To Hunt or Protect?
What a Waste: Failing to Engage Waste Reduction Solutions
Less and Less: Budgets for MOE and MNR not Meeting Needs
Shale Gas and Hydraulic Fracking
 Print This Post

The government of Canada has announced the end of the ecoENERGY home retrofit program, effective immediately, citing fiscal constraints. The popular program (which was previously matched by the Ontario government) helped homeowners cover part of the cost of energy efficiency retrofits such as a more efficient furnace or improved insulation.

As part of my statutory role in reviewing conservation initiatives in Ontario, I have previously reviewed the results of the home retrofit program. In its first three years, the program raised awareness of conservation among homeowners, with more than 150 000 Ontario households undertaking at least one energy efficiency action through the program and reducing their energy bills. Most retrofits led to a reduced use of natural gas for space heating, therefore the program also had an impact in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, I did note that the bulk of Ontario’s buildings had yet to be retrofitted (the program had reached only 4% of Ontario’s housing stock), and that the Ontario government’s lack of analysis as to the benefits of the program made it vulnerable to cancellation.

While disappointing, the federal government’s action is not surprising given the hints of restraint from Ottawa and Queen’s Park: a daily shock doctrine to prime taxpayers for release of the governments’ spring budgets. The Ontario government had already withdrawn its contribution to the home retrofit program, as well as cancelling energy conservation programs in other sectors. In this time of fiscal deficits, there will be pressure for further cuts, despite the very small percentage of public spending devoted to the environment (for example, the combined budgets of the Ministries of the Environment and Natural Resources accounted for less than 1% of Ontario’s budget in 2010/11). The former Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure also accounted for less than 1% of the Budget (and a fair portion of this was money spent on infrastructure as opposed to energy programs).

I expect more environmental programs to come under threat in the near future, regardless of the long-term consequences. As I have said previously, at some stage we will reach a tipping point. Beyond this threshold, we will lose meaningful policy and program capacity in these ministries for the sake of spending reductions that can really have no substantive impact on the deficit.

Media Release

Toronto, December 7, 2011 – The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario says the government’s energy conservation achievements are substantial, but incomplete. In releasing volume two of his 2010 Energy Conservation Progress Report, Managing a Complex Energy System – Results, Gord Miller says “the government achieved two-thirds of an electricity conservation target that it had set. It’s a respectable showing given that Ontario’s targets are among the most ambitious in North America”.

What concerns Miller more is that the value of conservation seems to have been lost in the public debates over energy, especially when debating electricity prices or building new generating plants. “The government should step up conservation efforts because it saves customers money, reduces environmental damage, and helps avoid new and often unpopular power plants,” Miller says. As the past two years have shown, willing host communities of any type of power plant are hard to find.

The Environmental Commissioner says the Annual Energy Conservation Progress Report shows mixed results in the government’s conservation efforts.

• Ontario’s electricity conservation efforts reduced peak demand by 1,750 megawatts (MW) in 2010 due to new programs and initiatives that began in 2005. This is the equivalent to not having to build three new natural gas-fired peaker plants. By investing about $1.7 billion in conservation programs, Ontario saved electricity ratepayers $3.8 billion in avoided electricity supply costs. However, this achievement was only 65% of the 2,700 MW peak demand reduction target that the government had set itself.
• Energy savings from the conservation programs operated by the province’s natural gas utilities performed well against the targets approved by the Ontario Energy Board. These programs were very cost-effective, providing more than $400 million in net benefits and a reduction of 185 million cubic metres in the amount of natural gas used in 2010.
• There are no results available on the conservation impact of time-of use (TOU) pricing.  The government is only now beginning to measure how people have changed their consumption with the introduction of TOU. The prices, set semi-annually by the Ontario Energy Board, are not based on actual data of how price levels affect customers’ consumption. TOU prices should incorporate this real-world information in order to maximize the amount of conservation.

 There is a risk that electric utilities will not meet their 2014 electricity conservation targets. Not only was there a delay in the province-wide programs delivered by the Ontario Power Authority, but the Ontario Energy Board has been unsupportive of customized programs that were supposed to be offered by utilities.

The Environmental Commissioner says “I want to impress upon the new Energy Minister, in light of the actions of the Ontario Energy Board and program delays, that immediate action is required if the electric utilities are to meet the 2014 targets that are a condition of their licence. The alternative,” says Miller, “is to give them more time.”

Download the full report

Download the Commissioner’s opening remarks

For more information on the report, please refer to the backgrounder

-  30   -

Aussi disponible en français

For more information, contact:

Maria Leung

Communications and Outreach Coordinator

Environmental Commissioner of Ontario

416-325-3371 / 416-819-1673

1-800-701-6454

Maria.leung@eco.on.ca

For bilingual support, please contact Jean-Marc Filion: 705-476-9665

The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario is the province’s independent environmental watchdog, appointed by the Legislative Assembly. The ECO monitors and reports on compliance with the Environmental Bill of Rights, the government’s progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and its actions towards achieving greater energy conservation in Ontario.

 

 

The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario will release Volume Two of his 2010 energy conservation report, Managing a Complex Energy System – Results. The report summarizes the province’s progress in meeting electricity conservation targets and reviews the performance of provincial programs to conserve energy.

The conference will be available via webcast. To watch the live broadcast of the media conference, please visit http://www.eco.on.ca/.

Please note the Commissioner will not be taking questions via webcast, but will be available for individual interviews after the news conference.

WHAT: Release of the Environmental Commissioner’s Annual Energy Conservation Progress Report – 2010 (Volume Two), Managing a Complex Energy System – Results.

WHEN: Wednesday, December 7, 2011 at 10:00 a.m.

WHERE: Room 149, Queen’s Park Media Studio, Legislative Assembly of Ontario
Legislative Building, Queen’s Park, Toronto, Ontario

For more information or to schedule interviews, contact:

Maria Leung, Communications & Outreach Coordinator,
416-325-3371 or email maria.leung@eco.on.ca.

For French language release and bilingual support, please contact:

Jean-Marc Filion, 705-476-9665.

• Media not currently accredited by the Legislative Assembly (Queen’s Park) Media Gallery must register with the Press Gallery if they wish to participate in the conference. To register, contact Gerald Christopher, Press Gallery Coordinator – Room 387A or 416-325-7922 or gerald_christopher@ontla.ola.org.
• The full Report will be available in print, PDF and e-book (.epub) formats at 10:00 a.m. on December 7, 2011. To download the report, visit http://www.eco.on.ca.

Aussi disponible en français.

-30-

The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario is the province’s independent environmental watchdog. Appointed by the Legislative Assembly, the ECO monitors and reports on compliance with the Environmental Bill of Rights, the government’s progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and its actions towards achieving greater energy conservation in Ontario.

As reported recently in the media, John Podesta from the Center for American Progress in Washington DC visited the MaRS Centre in Toronto and presented a compelling case for continued public policy support for and political commitment to green energy in Ontario.

In his presentation, Podesta praised the Green Energy and Green Economy Act (GEGEA) and its pivotal Feed-in Tariff (FIT) program as being the key drivers responsible for $21 billion in investment in Ontario and the creation of about 20,000 jobs since 2009. He credited the program for creating the kind of stable investment climate that manufacturers, financial institutions and entrepreneurs must have to hasten the transition to a low-carbon economy.

Podesta also referred to a recent Brookings Institute report in his presentation. The report indicated that the growing “clean economy” in the US is manufacturing- and export-intensive, with over 25 per cent of its 2.7 million workers in “green” jobs originating in the manufacturing sector. Median “green collar” wages in the US are 13 per cent higher than median wages in general. Between 2003 and 2010, the US clean economy outperformed the overall economy by a factor of two. He added Ontario is now a North American leader in the creation of these higher paying, export-oriented “green” industries.

Podesta provided the cautionary tale of China’s efforts to corner the renewables market, both in terms of technology development and dominating the export market. Recent media reports make it clear that China, as part of its push to become a world leader in green technology, is intent on putting a price on carbon as a component of its transition to a greener economy. I’ve made my position clear on the need for pricing carbon in Ontario in a previous blog. What’s really interesting about China is that it is being supported, in part, by the US Energy Foundation. As Podesta noted, China’s centrally controlled economy and its ability to regulate “at will” means they will increasingly challenge for world market dominance.

So, it’s concerning when a report just released by the Deutsche Bank in July singled out Ontario as a jurisdiction of concern where the outlook for green energy has “deteriorated” in part due to uncertainty over the future of the FIT program. Ontario has to decide where it wants to be in the international green economy in coming years.

On June 30, the Ontario Energy Board released its Demand Side Management Guidelines for Natural Gas Utilities. Don’t let the dry name fool you – this is an important document.

Demand-side management (DSM) is another name for energy conservation, and these guidelines set the rules that will govern the development and delivery of conservation programs by Ontario’s major natural gas utilities (Enbridge and Union Gas) for the next three years. The rules for natural gas DSM have remained largely unchanged since 1993, with a limited reform in 2006. The development of the new DSM guidelines has been a lengthy three-year process.

With the wind-up of government conservation programs, gas utilities are now the major provider of conservation programs for natural gas consumers. I have previously reviewed the conservation achievements of the gas utilities between 2007 and 2009.

The most important element of the new DSM guidelines is the budget that will be available for utilities to spend on natural gas conservation initiatives. The Board has concluded that utility budgets will essentially be frozen at their current levels for the next three years. Enbridge and Union Gas together will be allowed to spend approximately $55 million annually on conservation programs for their customers. This amount is much less than the budgets that the Ontario Power Authority and electric utilities are spending on electricity conservation, despite the fact that the direct use of natural gas accounts for a larger share of Ontario’s total energy consumption (and greenhouse gas emissions) than does electricity.

My recent Annual Energy Conservation Progress Report – 2010 (Volume One): Managing a Complex Energy System discusses why I believe this decision to freeze natural gas utility conservation budgets will have a detrimental impact, reducing conservation investment in Ontario below societally optimal levels.

Other important issues addressed in the new DSM guidelines include:

• The types of conservation programs that utilities will be enabled to deliver (including programs for low-income consumers);
• How program success will be measured and how utilities will be rewarded for success;
• Whether the benefits of reduced greenhouse gas emissions should be a factor in determining which programs utilities deliver.

The next step in natural gas conservation is for utilities to submit their three-year DSM plans (2012-2014) to the Board by September 15, 2011. These plans will allow us to see whether the new DSM guidelines have led to major changes in the conservation programs that utilities will offer to their customers. Look for my review of the new DSM guidelines in more detail in a future report.

In my Annual Energy Conservation Progress Report – 2010 (Volume One): Managing a Complex Energy System released earlier this week, I took issue with energy price subsidies, whether in the form of the 10% rebate on electricity bills currently delivered through the Ontario Clean Energy Benefit, or the idea of removing the HST from energy costs.

Removing energy subsidies is always going to be tricky politically, as Adam Radwanski skilfully pointed out in the Globe and Mail. But I still think it’s the right thing to do.

First off, let’s remember that the money for these subsidies doesn’t fall from the sky – it comes from your tax dollars. The Ontario Clean Energy Benefit will cost us 1.1 billion dollars this year. Under the Benefit’s current design, the size of your rebate is tied directly to the amount of energy you use. So if you and I have the same income, but I use twice as much energy, the Benefit will essentially transfer money from your pocket to mine; not very fair, and not an incentive to conserve energy.

As with many goods or services, the amount of energy we use will depend on the price. If we keep the price of energy artificially low through subsidies, we’ll use more of it, and undercut our conservation efforts. One study estimated that the 10 per cent reduction in the price of electricity provided by the Clean Energy Benefit will increase total electricity consumption in Ontario by 1.3 per cent. That will eliminate one-third of the electricity savings expected from utility conservation programs between 2011 and 2014.

It gets even worse in the long term. When deciding whether to invest in conservation measures such as insulation or higher efficiency appliances, most people compare the extra upfront cost they will pay with the savings they will see over time from lower energy bills. Keeping the price of energy artificially low distorts this comparison, making investments in energy efficiency less attractive to the consumer.

People often tell me that removing energy subsidies is unfair to low-income people or to families. There are two ways around this: A government can offer rebates or tax credits to protect vulnerable groups. You could expand these rebates and credits to everyone, but that will likely depend on your political beliefs. From an environmentalist’s perspective, I make just one request: don’t tie the size of the credit to the amount of energy you use!

Secondly, if you want to minimize any tax credits, create programs to help low-income households conserve energy by helping them make home improvements. My report commends the government for the province-wide low-income program it’s recently developed, particularly for encouraging a co-ordinated approach between electric and gas utilities.

This approach can be applied more generally to all consumers. Instead of subsidizing the price of energy, we could use government funds to reduce our energy bills by investing in conservation. That would be a much better idea than cancelling energy conservation programs such as the Home Energy Savings Program, which the Ontario government just did.

So it might not be popular, but I’ll stand by my comments – subsidizing the price of energy is not fair, and it hurts the cause of conservation.

Energy efficient houses can yield significant lifetime cost savings for homeowners. On the other hand, if buildings and neighbourhoods are built without energy efficiency in mind, inefficiencies can be “locked in” to the building stock for decades. Retrofitting for alternative energy systems can be expensive and, depending on the initial design of the building or neighbourhood, may not be practical or even possible. To avoid lost opportunities during the design and construction of new buildings, it is therefore important to adopt energy-efficient technologies from the outset of planning and building our communities.

In this year’s Annual Energy Conservation Progress Report – 2010 (Volume One): Managing a Complex Energy System, the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario examined barriers to the uptake of alternative energy systems. Why are technologies such as passive solar design, geoexchange, solar thermal and solar photovoltaic still achieving relatively low penetration in new residential developments?

One of the most commonly cited barriers to the use of alternative energy systems in new homes is the up-front costs for the homebuyer. Some financial barriers include:

• Lack of government incentives: There are currently no federal or provincial grants for new homebuyers or for builders wishing to invest in alternative energy technologies. Existing incentives focus on traditional energy efficiency measures (e.g., efficient air conditioners, boilers, etc.) rather than alternative energy systems. Further, the lack of government incentives – or the uncertainty caused by rapid changes to incentive programs – is leading to a lack of capacity in alternative energy industries and professionals.
• Home energy ratings are not mandatory: Mandatory home energy ratings can: foster a market premium for energy efficiency due to increased awareness of efficient buildings; build capacity; and, assist market transformation to a high efficiency residential sector. The ECO urges the government to enact the Green Energy Act, 2009 provision for mandatory home energy ratings at time of sale of a property.

Our report identifies several policy and regulatory barriers that could provide opportunities for change, including:

• The Ontario Building Code does not do enough to recognize the benefits of alternative energy systems: Alternative energy systems are voluntary options in housing development. The province could use the Ontario Building Code to make alternative energy systems mandatory, rather than voluntary, or use partial measures under the Building Code to encourage these systems.
• There is no tracking of alternative energy system uptake: The Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 states that planning authorities shall support energy efficiency through development patterns that promote design and orientation that maximize the use of alternative or renewable energy. However, the government has no performance indicators to determine whether this direction is achieving any effect in municipalities.
• Energy efficiency measures focus on individual buildings, rather than neighbourhoods: Energy use has been an unplanned consequence of land use planning decisions, rather than being taken into account in an integrated way during initial planning stages. A challenge for the province remains in integrating planning for alternative energy use at the neighbourhood and landscape scale. Organizations such as Quality Urban Energy Systems of Tomorrow and the Canadian Urban Institute, along with government and agency partners, have been examining ways of integrating energy planning with community design.

For additional information on the barriers to alternative energy systems in new housing developments, please see the ECO’s Annual Energy Conservation Progress Report – 2010 (Volume One): Managing a Complex Energy System.

Toronto, June 14, 2011 – Ontario’s Environmental Commissioner says the province’s energy regulator is putting up barriers to increased energy conservation. This is just one of the conclusions from his Annual Energy Conservation Progress Report – 2010 (Volume One), Managing a Complex Energy System, released today.

• Watch the webcast of the press conference live from Queen’s Park
• Watch videos of the Commissioner outlining key points of the report:
  • Overview
  • Electricity pricing
  • Smart Grid
• Click here for more information about the report
• Download the report on your computer (.pdf)
• Download the entire report on your mobile device (.epub)

“The Ontario Energy Board (OEB) plays a valuable role in protecting consumer interests, but this traditional regulatory function is in conflict with its expanded powers over conservation,” says Commissioner Gord Miller. He points to recent decisions by the OEB that have forced both electricity and natural gas distributors to restrict the conservation programs they offer to consumers.

One of the OEB’s key objectives is to promote energy conservation, but the Board recently told Union Gas and Enbridge Gas Distribution to curtail proposed increases in their conservation budgets and instead, freeze them at existing levels for the next three years. “The ‘low-hanging fruit’ in conservation has already been harvested,” says Miller, “but the Board won’t approve the investments that are necessary to accomplish further energy savings. The Board is ignoring the benefits that will come with reduced infrastructure costs and lower greenhouse gas emissions.”

The progress report also says the OEB has established rules that could hinder the Conservation and Demand Management (CDM) programs offered by the province’s electricity utilities. “The Ontario Power Authority has designed province-wide conservation programs, yet it’s the electric utilities who will carry them out. The Ontario Energy Board has given utilities all of the responsibility but none of the freedom to modify or improve programs if necessary.”

Conservation is only one of the areas where the OEB has been asked to take on an expanded policy-making role. The government has also told the OEB to facilitate the adoption of the smart grid – a modernized electricity system that uses information technology to operate more efficiently. Miller believes that “one entity has to be given the responsibility for establishing the vision of an integrated electricity system, and providing the leadership for modernizing our electricity grid.” However, the Commissioner questions whether the OEB would be the appropriate choice to achieve this innovative objective, given its conflicted responsibilities.

For more information, contact:

Maria Leung
Communications and Outreach Coordinator
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario
416-325-3371 / 416-819-1673
1-800-701-6454
Maria.leung@eco.on.ca

For French language release and bilingual support, please contact:
Jean-Marc Filion, 705-492-6997
The report is available for download at www.eco.on.ca

Aussi disponible en français

-       30        -

The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario is the province’s independent environmental watchdog. Appointed by the Legislative Assembly, the ECO monitors and reports on compliance with the Environmental Bill of Rights, the government’s progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and its actions towards achieving greater energy conservation in Ontario.

Toronto, June 14, 2011 – Ontario’s Environmental Commissioner says the Ontario Clean Energy Benefit (OCEB) is a perverse incentive that could endanger the energy conservation savings the government is hoping to achieve.

• Watch the webcast of the press conference live from Queen’s Park
• Watch videos of the Commissioner outlining key points of the report:
  • Overview
  • Electricity pricing
  • Smart Grid
• Click here for more information about the report
• Download the report on your computer (.pdf)
• Download the entire report on your mobile device (.epub)

In his Annual Energy Conservation Progress Report – 2010 (Volume One): Managing a Complex Energy System, released today, Gord Miller says “The 10 per cent rebate on electricity bills is an artificial subsidy on the price of electricity so it encourages consumers to use more.” A study by energy analysts estimated that the OCEB could wipe out a third of the planned conservation savings over the next four years.

Miller praises the government for introducing time-of-use pricing that encourages households and businesses to shift their consumption away from periods of high demand, but noted that price subsidies undercut this development. Prices will necessarily rise because of a backlog of transmission investments and new generation projects.. “Unfortunately, the government hasn’t addressed the issue of rising prices in a way that prioritizes conservation,” says Miller. “Instead it has continued the failed policy approach of the past where the government’s only answer to higher electricity prices is to artificially lower electricity prices.”

If the government feels the need to help consumers with the higher energy costs it could make the benefit a fixed amount, instead of tying it to consumption levels. “That way,” says Miller, “the Clean Energy Benefit would be less of a disincentive to electricity conservation.”

Miller is also concerned about delays in rolling out Ontario’s important Conservation and Demand Management (CDM) programs. Between now and 2014, electric utilities, supported by the Ontario Power Authority, are supposed to reduce overall electricity use, as well as peak demand. “Province-wide conservation programs were all supposed to begin in January 2011,” says the Commissioner, “but the delays mean we will miss opportunities this year.”

The Environmental Commissioner is also questioning a recent decision by the Ontario Energy Board to freeze conservation budgets for Union Gas and Enbridge Gas Distribution, particularly at a time when the government has cancelled its own conservation programs for gas consumers. “The Board has too narrow a view about the benefits that will come with increased conservation. It is ignoring the avoided infrastructure costs and reduced greenhouse gas emissions that will come with reductions in consumption of natural gas.”

For more information, contact:
Maria Leung
Communications and Outreach Coordinator
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario
416-325-3371 / 416-819-1673
1-800-701-6454
Maria.leung@eco.on.ca

For French language release and bilingual support, please contact:
Jean-Marc Filion, 705-492-6997

The report is available for download at www.eco.on.ca

Aussi disponible en français

- 30 -

The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario is the province’s independent environmental watchdog. Appointed by the Legislative Assembly, the ECO monitors and reports on compliance with the Environmental Bill of Rights, the government’s progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and its actions towards achieving greater energy conservation in Ontario.